48 169. In its jurisprudence, the Court has developed the concept of pecuniary damage and defined the situations in which it is proper to award this.108 170. According to the Commission, in determining pecuniary damages, the efforts undertaken by the next of kin of Ramón Mauricio García Prieto to obtain justice and the damage to the family assets and property as a consequence of the constant threats and harassment should be taken into account. The common intervener requested that the Court order the State to indemnify the victims under the following concepts: a) “consequential damages”; b) “lost wages”, and c) “moral damages.” 171. In the Court’s judgment, the concepts cited by the common intervener in points a) and b) should be analyzed under the concept of pecuniary damages. Point c) will be analyzed under the concept of non-pecuniary damages. Thus, the Court will now examine the requests made by the common intervener with respect to pecuniary damages in accordance with the aforementioned. 172. The common intervener argued that an award based upon consequential damages should be based upon the following: a) the loss of burned properties belonging to the García Prieto Giralt family, for which the State should pay for the damages to those properties beginning at the moment of the serious intimidating events; b) the expenses incurred as a result of the heart problems suffered by José Mauricio García Prieto Hirlemann which were a consequence of the anguish and suffering generated from the moment of Ramón Mauricio García Prieto’s homicide, for which the common intervener requested that an award be established in equity, given that the family did not retain receipts for the expenses incurred as a result; c) expenses incurred by the family in order to guarantee their safety given the risks to their lives and personal integrity. The common intervener indicated that because the family has been subjected to “threats, harassment, and incidents in which they were followed” for more than twelve years, they have had to increase their security measures. These measures included measures to secure their home and the employment of personnel. As a result, the common intervener requested that the Court order a sum in equity given that they did not retain receipts for these expenses. 173. This Court has held in other cases109 that it is appropriate to grant an amount for expenses incurred by victims or their next of kin as a consequence of the violations of human rights declared by the Court whenever these expenses have a direct causal nexus with the acts declared as violations, and are not expenses related to obtaining access to justice, since the latter are considered as repayment for “expenses and costs” and not as “compensation.” 174. In light of the violations declared in section VIII of the present Judgment, the Tribunal finds that the reparations ordered in this forum should refer only to those violations upon which the Court has ruled. When the Court establishes an amount in 108 Cf. Case of Aloeboetoe et al. v. Suriname. Reparations and Costs. Judgment of September 10, 1993. Series C No. 15, paras. 50, 71 and 87; Cantoral Huamaní and García Santa Cruz, supra note 10, para. 166. Case of Zambrano Vélez et al., supra note 10, para. 138; and Case of Escué Zapata, supra note 10, para. 132. 109 Cf. Case of the Serrano Cruz Sisters, supra note 76, para, 152; Case of Escué Zapata, supra note 10, para. 136; Case of Bueno Alves, supra note 34, paras. 193 and 194; and Case of the Yakye Axa Indigenous Community v. Paraguay. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment June 17, 2005. Series C No. 125, para. 194.